Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!nike!oliveb!hplabs!ucbvax!brahms!zafrany
From: zafrany@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Samy Zafrany)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Emotion and Logic
Message-ID: <15707@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 18-Sep-86 00:47:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15707
Posted: Thu Sep 18 00:47:17 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Sep-86 00:08:38 EDT
References: <11700119@inmet> <11700370@inmet> <698@ihlpf.UUCP> <485@ccd700.UUCP> <12467@kestrel.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: zafrany@brahms.UUCP (Samy Zafrany)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 28

In article <12467@kestrel.ARPA> ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) writes:
>In article <485@ccd700.UUCP>, jim@ccd700.UUCP (prototype account) writes:
>
>> In order for the laws of arithmetic to be *meaningful*, 
>> they must mean the same thing to everyone. 
>
>Are you familiar with the arguments of Quine that there is no
>such attribute as *meaning the same thing* ?
>However, he doesn't argue that everything is meaningless.
>
>So his arguments entail the falsity of your statement.
>For your statement to be true,  one of his arguments 
>must be incorrect. Which one?

 And are you familiar with the arguments of Wittgenstein that there is
such an attribute as *meaning the same thing* ? Which only philosophers 
(like Quine) don't seem to use correctly like the rest of us
and therefore fall into their routine traps (like Quine did).

So Wittgenstein's arguments entail the falsity of your statement.
For your statement to be true,  one of his arguments
must be incorrect. Which one?


ucbvax!brahms!zafrany  Samy Zafrany/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades
will seriously cramp his style."